1. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110383
    14 Feb '10 21:55
    When did god invent bacteria? There is no mention of them in the bible which is rather strange since they are so prevalent and are highest in the food chain. If god had mentioned them, it would have saved a lot of lives, especially in the dark ages.
  2. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    14 Feb '10 22:18
    Originally posted by 667joe
    When did god invent bacteria? There is no mention of them in the bible which is rather strange since they are so prevalent and are highest in the food chain. If god had mentioned them, it would have saved a lot of lives, especially in the dark ages.
    Actually, it seems quite normal that bacteria are not mentioned in the bible. The bible is not a book of scientific insights or technological ingenuity. It is not primarily a revelation of the world, the creatures it holds and the laws of physics, but a revelation of God, who He is and what His involvement in the world is like.
  3. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    14 Feb '10 22:28
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Actually, it seems quite normal that bacteria are not mentioned in the bible. The bible is not a book of scientific insights or technological ingenuity. It is not primarily a revelation of the world, the creatures it holds and the laws of physics, but a revelation of God, who He is and what His involvement in the world is like.
    It is not mentioned but look back at so many of the laws in the Bible for keeping clean. So God knew about bacteria...
  4. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110383
    14 Feb '10 22:29
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Actually, it seems quite normal that bacteria are not mentioned in the bible. The bible is not a book of scientific insights or technological ingenuity. It is not primarily a revelation of the world, the creatures it holds and the laws of physics, but a revelation of God, who He is and what His involvement in the world is like.
    Still, in Genesis god lists a lot of animals, but not bacteria or protozoa. I suggest to you the reason they are not listed is because the bible is the work of humans and (non existent ) god had nothing to do with it. If man had known about the existence of earth's most prevalent life form, it would have been included in the bible along with rules for dealing with bacteria.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Feb '10 22:351 edit
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Still, in Genesis god lists a lot of animals, but not bacteria or protozoa. I suggest to you the reason they are not listed is because the bible is the work of humans and (non existent ) god had nothing to do with it. If man had known about the existence of earth's most prevalent life form, it would have been included in the bible along with rules for dealing with bacteria.
    umm did you not read what Galvo had written? there were many specific laws governing against the spread of bacteria and disease. Quarantine laws, laws governing the preparation of food, sanitation, etc etc etc perhaps you would like to point out another ancient textbook which has these?
  6. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    15 Feb '10 00:31
    Originally posted by 667joe
    When did god invent bacteria? There is no mention of them in the bible which is rather strange since they are so prevalent and are highest in the food chain. If god had mentioned them, it would have saved a lot of lives, especially in the dark ages.
    Bacteria are God's secret weapon.
  7. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    15 Feb '10 01:51
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Still, in Genesis god lists a lot of animals, but not bacteria or protozoa. I suggest to you the reason they are not listed is because the bible is the work of humans and (non existent ) god had nothing to do with it. If man had known about the existence of earth's most prevalent life form, it would have been included in the bible along with rules for dealing with bacteria.
    Uhhhh, why would he mention something at that time that man could not see with the naked eye?
    But as far as man not knowing about things such as bacteria, we have learned about them..right?
    Also he didn't mention alot of animals, but they still existed so I don't see the point of what your saying.
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91521
    15 Feb '10 04:14
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Uhhhh, why would he mention something at that time that man could not see with the naked eye?
    But as far as man not knowing about things such as bacteria, we have learned about them..right?
    Also he didn't mention alot of animals, but they still existed so I don't see the point of what your saying.
    Quite right,Galveston. The bible would've been endless had God put everything into it. (Not that i'm saying it wasn't written by man, just following Galvestons line of thought)
    I do believe the vedas have a great many refrences to the study of the human body and healthy living. Written well before the bible.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Feb '10 04:59
    Originally posted by galveston75
    It is not mentioned but look back at so many of the laws in the Bible for keeping clean. So God knew about bacteria...
    Actually the laws tend to show experience with sickness rather than actual knowledge of bacteria. For example some animals are classified as 'dirty' when in reality it is just that their meat is more likely to harbor dangerous bacteria if not properly cooked. To this day nearly half the adherents of Abrahamic religions wont eat pork even though with proper preparation it is no more harmful than beef.
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Feb '10 09:35
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Uhhhh, why would he mention something at that time that man could not see with the naked eye?
    But as far as man not knowing about things such as bacteria, we have learned about them..right?
    Also he didn't mention alot of animals, but they still existed so I don't see the point of what your saying.
    we also learned about evolution, yet you deny that.
    we also learned about an old earth, yet many creationists deny that.


    you can't take the bible as "mentioning" bacterias and that evolution isn't real because god didn't say that we are related to chimps
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Feb '10 09:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Actually the laws tend to show experience with sickness rather than actual knowledge of bacteria. For example some animals are classified as 'dirty' when in reality it is just that their meat is more likely to harbor dangerous bacteria if not properly cooked. To this day nearly half the adherents of Abrahamic religions wont eat pork even though with proper preparation it is no more harmful than beef.
    i believe you read to much into it. pork is simply an animal that wallows in mud and as such is unworthy to be eaten. it would be a stretch to think that really the reason for forbidding "unclean animals" to be eating is to enforce a health code.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Feb '10 10:01
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i believe you read to much into it. pork is simply an animal that wallows in mud and as such is unworthy to be eaten. it would be a stretch to think that really the reason for forbidding "unclean animals" to be eating is to enforce a health code.
    Actually I did think it was a health code, but having looked it up, it seems it may not be that simple. However I very much doubt that pigs wallowing in mud has anything to do with it.
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    15 Feb '10 16:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Actually the laws tend to show experience with sickness rather than actual knowledge of bacteria. For example some animals are classified as 'dirty' when in reality it is just that their meat is more likely to harbor dangerous bacteria if not properly cooked. To this day nearly half the adherents of Abrahamic religions wont eat pork even though with proper preparation it is no more harmful than beef.
    Shows the wisdom of God....
  14. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    15 Feb '10 16:29
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    we also learned about evolution, yet you deny that.
    we also learned about an old earth, yet many creationists deny that.


    you can't take the bible as "mentioning" bacterias and that evolution isn't real because god didn't say that we are related to chimps
    Man has come up with a few things over the centuries that haven't always been correct. Correct?
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    15 Feb '10 16:33
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i believe you read to much into it. pork is simply an animal that wallows in mud and as such is unworthy to be eaten. it would be a stretch to think that really the reason for forbidding "unclean animals" to be eating is to enforce a health code.
    I don't know the name of the bacteria or whatever swine can carry but I believe if pork is not cooked enough we can get that into our bodies and get infected with it.
    So I'm sure that's part of the reason God did not want them to eat it.
Back to Top